crusherven

I enjoyed it--when I played AC3, during the ship missions I said, "Someone could totally make an entire game based around this." And they did. Sorta. Heroes of Might & Magic VI was pretty good.

Same. Though I do like the music for this game, especially at night, I usually listen to something else.

I disagree that friendly fire should suppress you (much). You're going to take cover, but that's not the same as being suppressed. The idea of suppression is that you put your head down and you're not even willing to peak up because you think it's going to get shot off. It's not just a matter of what happened in the past--suppression is based on my expectation of MORE shots coming at me. I think a lot of people are confusing cover and suppression in their arguments against this proposal.

I suspect a lot of people will stick around discussing playthroughs, optimal tactics, special challenges, and mods and such.

I suspect that's something that needs to be changed in the UI. It used to be that you could choose between heavy and light missiles for the foxtrot, and switching to higher-tier weapons also used to be manual. I don't think there's any purpose to that anymore, though I could be overlooking something.

I can only speak for myself, but honestly I don't care about the realism argument--to me this is just a fun discussion about the lore behind reapers. I suspect legit1337 cares a lot more about the realism angle than I do, but (I hope) he would agree that ultimate making the game balanced and fun is more important (and then making sure the lore text matches what we see in-game).

Whether or not the wolf thinks it is taking cover is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. I'm saying that the wolf (and you can ask your buddy about this) is almost never going to give you a second shot. I have never hunted wolves but that is my experience in hunting in general--however you want to describe their behavior, animals quickly and effectively react to being shot at in a way that makes them difficult to continue shooting at. We have an analogue to that in the game world--it's called cover. Nah, not so much. I know a lot of guys who were great at following orders, moving correctly, and doing all the right things, but lacked leadership ability. You can teach that to some extent, but proficiency in no way implies ability to teach (or lead). If you've been to college, you should be aware that there's plenty of brilliant professors who are lousy at lecturing and can't control the classroom. Certainly that's false in humans, inasmuch as it's even possible to measure intelligence. First, you'd have to arrive at an agreed definition of the word (which is hard enough). But as for animals coordinating their behavior--https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzfqPQm-ThU Dolphins using their tails to stir up mud in a circle to trap fish, then eat them as they try to escape. And other interesting techniques. http://www.scwildlife.com/pubs/marapril2012/dolphins.html You don't give predators nearly enough credit. I'm not the one saying that they're as smart as humans. You're the one making that claim. I think they're cunning predators who can react to their surroundings, hide from threats, and prioritize targets. None of that requires human intelligence. In fact, I just described the behavior of a LOT of predators that we're familiar with. I should add that it doesn't matter how smart Reapers are if they can't communicate easily. I can't remember, do they even have vocal cords? And their physical body is otherwise unsuited to a lot of physical actions. No, the aliens can't just give them prosthetics, not with the way they reproduce.

You mean pretty much the way any person will react to getting shot at, assuming they don't freeze in place? I haven't done a *lot* of hunting, but my experience is that the animal is going to find a place to hide. Besides, you're moving the goalposts here--first you claimed that the wolf doesn't even know to hide when it got shot at, and now you're saying that because it doesn't zig-zag or something it doesn't *really* know how to hide.

Not in any way that's relevant to this argument, no. My understanding is that police sometimes use dogs as a non-lethal means to distract or disarm a subject. Is that really the comparison you're trying to make? Give commands? Respond to the greater tactical situation rather than merely what affects themselves and their current targets? Reproduce without killing something? Unless, of course, their brains just don't work in a way that makes them suitable for leading a battle or doing pretty much anything except for killing (such as piloting or repairing a ship). You seem to have this idea that "intelligence" (a nebulous term if there ever was one) is a linear progression; that you can draw a line and place Reapers, Sebilians, wolves, and humans all on a continuum of intelligence with various tasks requiring various levels of intelligence. If that is the case, you have a faulty understanding of how intelligence works. Some people are really smart when it comes to some things, like, say, composing music, but complete idiots when it comes to fixing a car. Hardly. My response was that it doesn't matter if they think "intelligently" so long as they can be trained to act "intelligently." A computer is the dumbest thing in the world, but a lot of people have been tricked into thinking computers are smart because programmers designed them to act that way.

I doubt he actually meant that--but even if he did, one method for hunting wolves is using a game call to get the wolf to think you're a dying animal. When they get close, you take the shot--but if you miss, they'll disappear in a hurry. So from the wolf's perspective, I guess the answer is "yes."

Have you never hunted? If you shoot at an animal, it's going to run and hide. Certainly I've seen a coyote react to a near miss, and this was from several hundred yards.

Sigh... no, we don't, and you know we don't, so stop being disingenuous. We use dogs to sniff for bombs. We use them as sentries. We even use them to intimidate and guard prisoners. We don't train dogs to take part in actual combat. By your own logic they should exclusively use robots, because they can do everything better. Also using your logic, Reapers can be remotely controlled by more intelligent creatures using psionics. Their technology is so good, if they want to find some way to make Reapers act tactically, they can. You're defeating your own argument. The only reason you think your solution is the only viable one is that you're not really thinking about it.

Does the amount you're healing matter? I wasn't able to reproduce a medic CTD no matter which direction my soldier was facing.

Uh... "combat animals"? I'm not sure what you mean by that term. We haven't really used animals in actual combat since we stopped riding horses. Nonsense. This is an arbitrary rule you invented yourself. The melee attack is deadly (arguably more dangerous than plasma weaponry when properly applied) and performs several secondary roles. The aliens don't need to give Reapers plasma weapons, particularly if their physiology is not well adapted to it. If their eyesight does not allow them to focus properly, if the weapons do not fit their bodies, if they don't have the mental bent for it, they could easily be less dangerous with plasma weapons.

I'm not sure if you didn't read what I said, or if you didn't think about it, but I specifically said "trained," and no, it's not hard to teach a dog that guns are dangerous. I know people who have done it on accident by using a BB gun to get them to shut up from the porch. As soon as she grabs the pellet gun those dogs find cover. There's nothing abstract about that kind of threat assessment. As for dogs charging a man with a gun, I think with our analogy the point is that the Reaper must eventually charge--but from an ambush position, not from an open field. It really doesn't matter why they do it for the purposes of this discussion--whether they instinctively prefer to stay hidden, or understand the danger of firearms, or are trained, the result is the same. Not really that hard. As far as the player is concerned, using cover is the same as hiding, and any animal can figure that out. Training an animal to target a specific enemy based on some cue should not be hard for a skilled trainer, either. Eh, I haven't looked at them recently, but do they even have opposable thumbs? Do their eyes focus in the right way to use weapons accurately? Ability to use basic tactics (or what appears to be tactics based on instinct and training) does not equate to the ability to use firearms in any sense at all.

I brought realism up only because legit1337 thought to use it as an argument. My point is that *realistically* not only should Reapers act with intelligence in hiding and using cover, but also they should be able to target the most dangerous soldiers, first. Heck, *realistically* the other aliens should be able to give them attack or hold commands to use them in a coordinated attack. There's no realism argument to make Reapers dumber. But I do agree that balance > realism.

Actually, I'm pretty sure wolves can know guns are dangerous (particularly if they've been trained). Just like dogs, they're very observant, and contrary to what you seem to think, animals can recognize objects. Have you never owned a cat or dog? My uncle owns a dog that yaps a lot, and they have a spray bottle they use to shut it up. You don't have to actually spray the dog, though--it shuts up as soon as you reach for the bottle. We could easily train an animal with the intelligence of a dog to attack a man carrying a rocket launcher before a man with a pistol, and staying out of sight until you are very close is the kind of good sense most predators exhibit.

If you say so. I've had guys get mowed down in a single 3-shot burst while carrying shields.

IMHO Civ V is the best one since Civ II. The Gods and Kings expansion is worth it, too. I don't know what reviews you read, but the combat blows the other games out of the water, for me. Not being able to stack units makes you think a lot more about battlefield tactics. They simplified or removed some features like corruption, waste, and pollution, but the way it's done forces you to focus more on the important things and less on annoyances. About my only complaints are that a culture victory might be a little too easy, and that the victory screen can be anticlimactic. Oh, and the computer cheats, but when has it not? My brother liked IV a lot (I never played) but he does think that V is better. Back to the OT--I'd like to see a good space exploration/conquest turn-based like MOO. Endless Space had so much potential except for the non-existent combat.

I like the idea in principle, but I feel a little cautious about having a bunch of icons. They either need to be easy to read, or have a mouseover explanation, or both. I've played a number of games with status indicators like that where it is just confusing.

From a game design/psychological perspective, I have to disagree. Logically, you're right, but as a player, I think having the game tell me I did good makes the game more fun. I think some system to rate the player (even if it's only cosmetic) would be pretty desirable. I'd like to see something like the XCOM Terrible/Poor/Ok/Good/Excellent ratings implemented, even if the wording is different. Yes, I can tell when a mission is a success, but especially after a pretty epic fight, it's nice to have some sort of affirmation in-game.

It's in the personnel screen--Same as for soldiers. When you say "the interrogation screen" do you mean the autopsy?

Alternatively, you could just place the CC in the "optimum" location, assuming such a place exists. I suspect people wouldn't really like that, though, because someone will always have a reason for doing it differently. If it's possible, I'd like to see a choice as well.

Honestly, the vanilla ranks bug me, too. Having a lot of officers that actually shoot and do stuff in combat is nonsensical enough; having everyone eventually hit Colonel is... blah. It really makes me roll my eyes. I like a lot of the work they've done on this game, but I really don't like this decision. If you're going to use real ranks, use a real rank structure.

Can't answer the poll--I take all of those things.